Well, we can argue that the ‘once again’ might not be entirely the case; the OF is a valid rite and, as such, the Church (as in the members who attend the OF) were not sidetracked from eternity and immortality because they attended the OF.
What one could probably say with more accuracy is that Pope Benedict, in S.P., enriched the Church through bringing back the EF rite from where, in many places, it had been considered banished, unnecessary, abrogated, etc. This enables the EF to enrich the OF and for the OF to enrich the EF as well, IMO.
When I was a young girl, my grandparents used to subscribe to Reader’s Digest Condensed Books. Now, these were, for the most part, extremely well done. What were arguably the most ‘necessary’ or important parts of the text were given while parts seen as redundant, unnecessary, or simply not needed were omitted.
To me, the OF is like a condensed book. It gets the point across --or, to be more accurate, it gets what the editor THINKS is the point. It is recognizably what the author wrote, although there are points where in order to move along smoothly words are changed or it is assumed that the omitted parts are ‘already understood’ and need not be ‘listed out’. After reading it, one could answer questions about the characters, plot, etc and respond pretty much as well as somebody who read the ‘unabridged’ text’.
And the EF is like the ‘uncondensed’ book. It contains the whole package, even if to some that implies redundancy, or too much emphasis on ‘unnecessary’ descriptions, be they of people, place, or plot.
Two books which contain many things in common (and one could argue the most integral things) but which differ in exposition.
rorate-caeli.blogspot.com